Lineker dropped from Match of the Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by + the native hipster

a word salad with no dressing

---

I've put out a correction to a mistake in the 3rd paragraph (changing "weren't" to "were"

Do you still have the same comment? If so,why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

I have now put out a correction changing "weren't" to "were" in line 5 of para 3 which obviously changes the sense.

Do you still have a question???If so,what?

---

I don't. I didn't see the quotation marks at the start so read the whole thing wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by + the native hipster

i'm a connie there is no 'maybe' you connie to avoid tax

---

We'll see what the courts decide? Lineker is using the Lorraine Kelly defence with the case with the HMRC. She won on appeal insisting she was a freelancer.

Who knows what the outcome will be?

I'm coming across as a St. Gary fanboy here and I honestly don't care, its just interesting to see some of the shiit spewed out about people of the 'woke'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I thought he was being chased for £5m and the daily hotel bill was £7m? So the tax he has allegedly not paid would only cover 17 hours worth.

It will be interesting to see how this ends because I think the tax case has more to do with this than it first appeared - seems to be about proving a point to the BBC.

The BBC needs him back on, but if Lineker agrees to stop posting tweets he knows breaks his 'employers' charter, it may cost him a try £5m in tax?

---

Good to see your nuance is back in full working order, some may call it "jumping to conclusions", "clutching at straws" or "piissing in the wind."

Didn't the Beeb suspend him Lineker? He's played a blinder here asking Shearer etc al to support him over his tax bill?

I'm surprised some of the media hasn't hammered Lineker before. His alleged extra maritals/rumours would be food and drink for some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

Earlier on a post TOBW wrote

"it's telling that James Wales had to go all the way back to John Cole (who retired from the BBC thirty one years ago!) in his attempt to try and balance the current over use of Conservative party donors, employees or consultants in senior positions at the Corporation with its use of those with a different political opinion.."

It was in fact me who mentioned John Cole in a response to Eric who had said that BBC political editors were generally Tories. I was just pointing out that I didn't believe that John Simpson, John Cole and Andrew Marr weren't. I am sure about Cole and Marr, but I haven't been able to find anything specific about Simpson political loyalties, so perhaps I should have left him out on reflection,although in all the years of his work as political editor and then Foreign Correspondent I have never been able to discern any party bias.

My response though was never intended to be a defence about the overuse of Tories in senior roles with the Tories and nothing in my post remotely mentioned this..

Indeed I think Richard Sharp should stand down over his links with Boris Johnson.

If you want to know my views Bob please ask me. It is not the first time you have done this with my posts.

I look forward to your apology in due course.

---

I apologised to James in a later post where I said it must have been you, but I'm not going to apologise now because my point still stands, you were looking for what you understood to be non Conservative correspondents at the BBC (or at least I think you were because your explanation above is not clear on that as it contains a double negative)and you had so few candidates that you had to include someone who retired in 1992 among your three examples - for what it's worth, John Simpson has always struck me as a bit of a lefty, but, like you, I have nothing "official" to back that feeling up with.

I've been listening to the News Agents podcast in recent weeks and the three presenters on it are all ex BBC employees who are often critical of the Government on it - Emily Maitlis got her knuckles rapped for anti Government editorialising when she was presenting Newsnight during the Covid crisis, Lewis Goodall is a former Labour activist who has made reference to his past proving somewhat problematic during his time at the BBC and Jon Sopel I'm not sure about, but he was most definitely anti Donald Trump.

In the message I referred to earlier, I also said that I preferred the approach which has applied during the large majority of my life whereby you often knew of a correspondent's personal political views, but it didn't matter because they didn't let it effect their "day job". I used Andrew Neil as a recent example of this who certainly didn't take things easier when interviewing Conservative politicians.

However, this has changed in recent years - I think it's significant that the three News Agents are now former BBC employees and I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that Laura Kuenssberg is scrupulously unbiased while carrying out her duties at the BBC.

Andrew Neil is a clear example of a BBC political journalist putting his personal opinions out there on Twitter and no one batting an eyelid among the BBC management at this. As I mentioned, this never particularly bothered me, but now it reeks of double standards when you compare it to how the sports presenter Gary Lineker has been treated and begs the obvious question, would any action have been taken against Lineker if he had tweeted in favour of the Government's "stop the boats" approach?

I agree with you that Sharpe should have resigned over his links with Boris Johnson, but he is part of a Conservative hierarchy which has been installed at the BBC at a time when they are more anti the Corporation than ever. For most of my life, Id say the BBC were given a degree of latitude by the public when it came to views about its neutrality and no one got too worked up about a certain presenter being a Tory and another Labour or Lib Dem, but that's changed now and at a time when I believe the BBC's future depends on them being able to somehow restore their former reputation for neutrality, it is making decisions which appear to be politically motivated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Don't play dumb AZ, and gas is too expensive to waste it on lighting us up with it.

My seven year old doesn't know what 'just like 1930s Germany means'. Any grown adult does.

Lineker can say he doesn't like someone's language or tone. We all do that all the time in various conversations and actions. When you reference 1930s Germany you are referencing the rise of the Nazis and everyone knows it.

---

Gosh. Was it only a couple of days ago that you said you would be a much happier man if there was more focus on real news and less on tweets from celebrities? Yet 35 Lineker posts and a couple of Guido Fawkes distractions later, here you are!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I apologised to James in a later post where I said it must have been you, but I'm not going to apologise now because my point still stands, you were looking for what you understood to be non Conservative correspondents at the BBC (or at least I think you were because your explanation above is not clear on that as it contains a double negative)and you had so few candidates that you had to include someone who retired in 1992 among your three examples - for what it's worth, John Simpson has always struck me as a bit of a lefty, but, like you, I have nothing "official" to back that feeling up with.

I've been listening to the News Agents podcast in recent weeks and the three presenters on it are all ex BBC employees who are often critical of the Government on it - Emily Maitlis got her knuckles rapped for anti Government editorialising when she was presenting Newsnight during the Covid crisis, Lewis Goodall is a former Labour activist who has made reference to his past proving somewhat problematic during his time at the BBC and Jon Sopel I'm not sure about, but he was most definitely anti Donald Trump.

In the message I referred to earlier, I also said that I preferred the approach which has applied during the large majority of my life whereby you often knew of a correspondent's personal political views, but it didn't matter because they didn't let it effect their "day job". I used Andrew Neil as a recent example of this who certainly didn't take things easier when interviewing Conservative politicians.

However, this has changed in recent years - I think it's significant that the three News Agents are now former BBC employees and I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that Laura Kuenssberg is scrupulously unbiased while carrying out her duties at the BBC.

Andrew Neil is a clear example of a BBC political journalist putting his personal opinions out there on Twitter and no one batting an eyelid among the BBC management at this. As I mentioned, this never particularly bothered me, but now it reeks of double standards when you compare it to how the sports presenter Gary Lineker has been treated and begs the obvious question, would any action have been taken against Lineker if he had tweeted in favour of the Government's "stop the boats" approach?

I agree with you that Sharpe should have resigned over his links with Boris Johnson, but he is part of a Conservative hierarchy which has been installed at the BBC at a time when they are more anti the Corporation than ever. For most of my life, Id say the BBC were given a degree of latitude by the public when it came to views about its neutrality and no one got too worked up about a certain presenter being a Tory and another Labour or Lib Dem, but that's changed now and at a time when I believe the BBC's future depends on them being able to somehow restore their former reputation for neutrality, it is making decisions which appear to be politically motivated.

---

I will respond to this later today for two reasons

Firstly I am typing on my smartphone and doing a post of any length is a pain in the proverbial

Secondly I am too angry by your effectively calling me a liar in your first paragraph so I may say something I later regret.

The only point I will make is that there was an incorrect double negative which I corrected as soon as I realized.

There was also a glaring error in your response which I shall go into later

I still get very tired after my health scare and COVID
In the last few months so it won't be for awhile today

If I can be bothered because I really feel that this board has become a pretty intolerable and petty place over the past few years and I'm not sure I need that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

I will respond to this later today for two reasons

Firstly I am typing on my smartphone and doing a post of any length is a pain in the proverbial

Secondly I am too angry by your effectively calling me a liar in your first paragraph so I may say something I later regret.

The only point I will make is that there was an incorrect double negative which I corrected as soon as I realized.

There was also a glaring error in your response which I shall go into later

I still get very tired after my health scare and COVID
In the last few months so it won't be for awhile today

If I can be bothered because I really feel that this board has become a pretty intolerable and petty place over the past few years and I'm not sure I need that.

---

Look Elwood, I was very pleased to hear you were over your health scare and I said as much at the time - I wish you continued good health, but why get so angry about what is said on a messageboard? I was trying to be conciliatory in my reply and the fact that I apologised to James Wales shows that I'm prepared to say sorry when I think it's appropriate, but I don't understand why I should to you in this case. Nevertheless, I'll apologise if you want me to - sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were lying even though I didn't mean to do that.

‘

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordi Culé

We'll see what the courts decide? Lineker is using the Lorraine Kelly defence with the case with the HMRC. She won on appeal insisting she was a freelancer.

Who knows what the outcome will be?

I'm coming across as a St. Gary fanboy here and I honestly don't care, it’s just interesting to see some of the shiit spewed out about people of the 'woke'.

---

I find it astonishing that people (not you) talk about ‘woke’ as if it’s a bad thing. I personally love being ‘woke’ , it’s better than being inconsiderate and ignorant!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I apologised to James in a later post where I said it must have been you, but I'm not going to apologise now because my point still stands, you were looking for what you understood to be non Conservative correspondents at the BBC (or at least I think you were because your explanation above is not clear on that as it contains a double negative)and you had so few candidates that you had to include someone who retired in 1992 among your three examples - for what it's worth, John Simpson has always struck me as a bit of a lefty, but, like you, I have nothing "official" to back that feeling up with.

I've been listening to the News Agents podcast in recent weeks and the three presenters on it are all ex BBC employees who are often critical of the Government on it - Emily Maitlis got her knuckles rapped for anti Government editorialising when she was presenting Newsnight during the Covid crisis, Lewis Goodall is a former Labour activist who has made reference to his past proving somewhat problematic during his time at the BBC and Jon Sopel I'm not sure about, but he was most definitely anti Donald Trump.

In the message I referred to earlier, I also said that I preferred the approach which has applied during the large majority of my life whereby you often knew of a correspondent's personal political views, but it didn't matter because they didn't let it effect their "day job". I used Andrew Neil as a recent example of this who certainly didn't take things easier when interviewing Conservative politicians.

However, this has changed in recent years - I think it's significant that the three News Agents are now former BBC employees and I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that Laura Kuenssberg is scrupulously unbiased while carrying out her duties at the BBC.

Andrew Neil is a clear example of a BBC political journalist putting his personal opinions out there on Twitter and no one batting an eyelid among the BBC management at this. As I mentioned, this never particularly bothered me, but now it reeks of double standards when you compare it to how the sports presenter Gary Lineker has been treated and begs the obvious question, would any action have been taken against Lineker if he had tweeted in favour of the Government's "stop the boats" approach?

I agree with you that Sharpe should have resigned over his links with Boris Johnson, but he is part of a Conservative hierarchy which has been installed at the BBC at a time when they are more anti the Corporation than ever. For most of my life, Id say the BBC were given a degree of latitude by the public when it came to views about its neutrality and no one got too worked up about a certain presenter being a Tory and another Labour or Lib Dem, but that's changed now and at a time when I believe the BBC's future depends on them being able to somehow restore their former reputation for neutrality, it is making decisions which appear to be politically motivated.

---

There's no doubting the fact there has been Tory influence in the management of the BBC and IMO has a major bearing on this current debacle.

However, I believe what changed everything for the BBC was the ending of the mandatory licence fee for just owning a TV set. Although I think the decision to be right it has had the effect of enervating the Corporation, depleting it's funding and weakening it's authority.

Unfortunately I think what we see now is a shadow of the BBC's confident former self and in its place is an enfeebled common broadcaster cow towing to it's political masters to eke out it's survival

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

I will respond to this later today for two reasons

Firstly I am typing on my smartphone and doing a post of any length is a pain in the proverbial

Secondly I am too angry by your effectively calling me a liar in your first paragraph so I may say something I later regret.

The only point I will make is that there was an incorrect double negative which I corrected as soon as I realized.

There was also a glaring error in your response which I shall go into later

I still get very tired after my health scare and COVID
In the last few months so it won't be for awhile today

If I can be bothered because I really feel that this board has become a pretty intolerable and petty place over the past few years and I'm not sure I need that.

---

Mike, hurry along. Real time action needed here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperBluebirds91

I find it astonishing that people (not you) talk about ‘woke’ as if it’s a bad thing. I personally love being ‘woke’ , it’s better than being inconsiderate and ignorant!

---

The problem with the 'woke' is they're deemed as individuals and a group to be intolerant of any other opinions that differ to their own. They've created a 'cancel culture' for example?

Yet here we are with the current pin up boy of the woke being condemned for having an opinion.

It's strange that 'free speech' is OK until its not the desired speech for some?

Sounds a bit like a regime once doing the rounds in Europe in the 1930s doesn't it? Who knows?

You can't make it up, or perhaps some are and currently do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Gosh. Was it only a couple of days ago that you said you would be a much happier man if there was more focus on real news and less on tweets from celebrities? Yet 35 Lineker posts and a couple of Guido Fawkes distractions later, here you are!

---

You are obsessed with me and Guido Fawkes, although no reference has been made to that interesting website. Have you been reading it on the sly? You dirty boy!

Hey, whatever you are into is fine with me.

Yes, I think the general interest with celebrities tweets is a generally negative thing about today's news cycle and values.

But it is what it is, if it is the news (and it is) that doesn't mean you have to opt out of it.

There's loads of spin offs from the culture war / wokeism / twitter / faux outrage that I think are enormous distractions from real issues, but alas that is the reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordi Culé

The problem with the 'woke' is they're deemed as individuals and a group to be intolerant of any other opinions that differ to their own. They've created a 'cancel culture' for example?

Yet here we are with the current pin up boy of the woke being condemned for having an opinion.

It's strange that 'free speech' is OK until its not the desired speech for some?

Sounds a bit like a regime once doing the rounds in Europe in the 1930s doesn't it? Who knows?

You can't make it up, or perhaps some are and currently do?

---

Is it not the case that because he is 'woke' it affords him all the moral protection he needs for some. This is a very wealthy straight male who has had to repay tax before after not paying and is under investigation again. But because he says bad things about the govt and condemns things as racists, the 'woke' will leap to his support?

It's an interesting one. We shall see in the coming months no doubt whether others are afforded the same solidarity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperBluebirds91

I find it astonishing that people (not you) talk about ‘woke’ as if it’s a bad thing. I personally love being ‘woke’ , it’s better than being inconsiderate and ignorant!

---

That definition of woke and anti woke is so fkn woke.😭🤣

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordi Culé

Good to see your nuance is back in full working order, some may call it "jumping to conclusions", "clutching at straws" or "piissing in the wind."

Didn't the Beeb suspend him Lineker? He's played a blinder here asking Shearer etc al to support him over his tax bill?

I'm surprised some of the media hasn't hammered Lineker before. His alleged extra maritals/rumours would be food and drink for some.

---

This is my first post on this thread:

"He shouldn't have said it and he shouldn't have been sacked. The BBC is in a difficult position in terms of impartiality I suppose."

I can totally see both sides to it, but painting Lineker as some kind of Saint is not something I agree with and pointing out he is currently under investigation for tax avoidance (and using a bible (guardian) article too!) is not unreasonable or not irrelevant to the debate.

It's a fact he put the BBC in a difficult position and it's a fact there's a tax case ongoing.

What do you want me to do? W**k him off and call him a left-wing hero whilst calling Suella Braverman Himmler or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

You are obsessed with me and Guido Fawkes, although no reference has been made to that interesting website. Have you been reading it on the sly? You dirty boy!

Hey, whatever you are into is fine with me.

Yes, I think the general interest with celebrities tweets is a generally negative thing about today's news cycle and values.

But it is what it is, if it is the news (and it is) that doesn't mean you have to opt out of it.

There's loads of spin offs from the culture war / wokeism / twitter / faux outrage that I think are enormous distractions from real issues, but alas that is the reality.

---

Methinks you do protest too much.

https://order-order.com/2023/03/10/l...lion-tax-bill/

Here is the Guido hit piece that contains a link to the Guardian article you actually posted. A few hours after this was posted you were on here changing the storyline on here to fit.

The idea that you sourced a Guardian article on something completely different to his tweet rather than got it in your Guido twitter feed is a stretch of imagination too far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Methinks you do protest too much.

https://order-order.com/2023/03/10/l...lion-tax-bill/

Here is the Guido hit piece that contains a link to the Guardian article you actually posted. A few hours after this was posted you were on here changing the storyline on here to fit.

The idea that you sourced a Guardian article on something completely different to his tweet rather than got it in your Guido twitter feed is a stretch of imagination too far.

---

You are a fine agent comrade Away Days. Your ability to sniff out someone reading non approved literature is impressive. This reminds me of Russia in the 1920s...no wait, I am joking! Chill!

Unfortunately you have wasted your time in two respects. I am well aware of the Linekers past - he was caught in the same tax controversy that Jimmy Carr was I believe. I'm also aware of this ongoing story - I posted an article from the Independent and Guardian that predate that article.

Also, you have wasted your time because what is your problem with Guido Fawkes? Why shouldn't the media hold the wealthy that are accused of tax avoidance to account? What on earth is wrong with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

You are a fine agent comrade Away Days. Your ability to sniff out someone reading non approved literature is impressive. This reminds me of Russia in the 1920s...no wait, I am joking! Chill!

Unfortunately you have wasted your time in two respects. I am well aware of the Linekers past - he was caught in the same tax controversy that Jimmy Carr was I believe. I'm also aware of this ongoing story - I posted an article from the Independent and Guardian that predate that article.

Also, you have wasted your time because what is your problem with Guido Fawkes? Why shouldn't the media hold the wealthy that are accused of tax avoidance to account? What on earth is wrong with that?

---

And there was me thinking you weren't obsessed with media lovies and wanted to consume a diet of real news. Nothing wrong with Guido as an attributed source. You should use it more often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Is it not the case that because he is 'woke' it affords him all the moral protection he needs for some. This is a very wealthy straight male who has had to repay tax before after not paying and is under investigation again. But because he says bad things about the govt and condemns things as racists, the 'woke' will leap to his support?

---

Is it perhaps possible that people are 'leaping' to support Lineker beacuse a) they agree with what he's saying, and b) they can see the double-standards of those who have made the decision to stand him down?

As for this 'woke' bollocks, how tired has that become already? What a laughable label it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

I would be interested to know what makes you conclude from my post that I did not read what Lineker wrote?

---

Sure thing. You said: "Incidentally whilst I agree Lineker has every right to express his personal opinion what he said was totally idiotic. There is no way the current situation resembles Germany in the 1930's. If it did, we would be "disposing" of boat people very shortly after they arrive in the UK."

Lineker wrote that, in his opinion, the refugee policy was cruel and the language being used is not dissimilar to that used in Germany in the 1930's. Therefore, I believed you hadn't read what he'd written. After all, for anyone to assume from his tweet that he believes the UK in 2023 resembles Germany in the 1930's would be totally idiotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

And there was me thinking you weren't obsessed with media lovies and wanted to consume a diet of real news. Nothing wrong with Guido as an attributed source. You should use it more often.

---

I'm not. But I am interested in the news even if think news cycles are warped.

And if you are going to post things to/about me making slightly odd claims, I am likely to reply, in fairness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Is it perhaps possible that people are 'leaping' to support Lineker beacuse a) they agree with what he's saying, and b) they can see the double-standards of those who have made the decision to stand him down?

As for this 'woke' bollocks, how tired has that become already? What a laughable label it is.

---

Yes I hate the term 'woke' it's hard to define and it's why I tend to put quotation marks around it.

It is possible of course that all these people think the language is like 1930s Germany. However, that does seem unlikely, not least because many have criticised the tweet but support his right to say it. Also it would slightly undermine the idea of an impartial BBC if that rather radical interpretation is so common throughout its organisation.

His job is to present football programmes on the BBC. So if he spent a lot of time engaging with or promoting sky sports/itv programmes and content on social media then the BBC would be well within their rights to pull him in. If he disseminated commercially sensitive information, they'd have a right to pull him in. But the idea that the twitter ramblings of a football presenter affect the impartiality of the BBC is beyond moronic, to pull him in over his political views is out of order.

It's been heartening to see his fellow football commentators stand with him. Also seen lots of people from a right wing perspective talking along the lines of ' I disagree with him, but he has a right to speak his mind'.

This was a ridiculous hit job whipped up by the vermin at the Daily Mail. Feel a bit sorry for the BBC, as they have tried to respond to the media sh*tstorm whipped up by the mail. There are too many idiots on the left and right who seek to cancel others. These idiots can't be allowed to continue stifling political debate. Hopefully this lineker drama draws a line in the sand, and people start standing up to the cancel brigade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

It is possible of course that all these people think the language is like 1930s Germany. However, that does seem unlikely, not least because many have criticised the tweet but support his right to say it. Also it would slightly undermine the idea of an impartial BBC if that rather radical interpretation is so common throughout its organisation.

---

Really? So you think people who work for the 'impartial' BBC are themselves impartial on such topics? If so, you're seriously deluded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Really? So you think people who work for the 'impartial' BBC are themselves impartial on such topics? If so, you're seriously deluded.

---

I'm saying public faith in the impartiality of the BBC would be undermined if the number of people who agree with that tweet went as deep as it does. And it would.

And yes, personally I think someone can hold (what I would say is a ) radical opinion and behave impartially, but it would undermine faith in the BBC, which is pretty rocky as it is.

These things are quite finely balanced really.
https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/is-the-bbc-biased-bmg-reveals-public-perceptions-of-broadcaster-impartiality-in-the-uk/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Look Elwood, I was very pleased to hear you were over your health scare and I said as much at the time - I wish you continued good health, but why get so angry about what is said on a messageboard? I was trying to be conciliatory in my reply and the fact that I apologised to James Wales shows that I'm prepared to say sorry when I think it's appropriate, but I don't understand why I should to you in this case. Nevertheless, I'll apologise if you want me to - sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were lying even though I didn't mean to do that.

---

Bob


On reflection, angry was probably too strong a word to use.

However I do get irritated when assumptions are made about my post which are simply not there,and in this case as I reiterated subsequently I was not making an attempt to justify the overuse of tories purely responding factually to a point made by Eric in another post about BBC political editors being generally tories

The other thing you got wrong is in thinking I was referring to political correspondents. I wasn't, I was referring to political EDITORS, a much smaller field.

There have only been ten of these, the first two Hardiman Smith and David Holmes I know nothing about. For balance my views on those after Simpson Cole and Marr are

Robin Oakley From his background probably Conservative, but not sure

Nick Robinson. A Tory in his student days but not sure about later years. Always seems even handed

Laura Kuensberg. Strongly suspected by some (including yourself)of being story sympathiser. Never been sure myself

Chris Mason. I have no idea of his political views. again always seems even handed.

Anyway enough of this wittering I accept your apology.

interesting to see the viewing figures from last nights show

Last nights MOTD was watched by 2.58 million viewers up by 500,000 from last weeks show !

The shows biggest audience since 5'th November 2022 watched by 2.63 million people

thought the show attracted much bigger audiences from those type of figures

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I'm saying public faith in the impartiality of the BBC would be undermined if the number of people who agree with that tweet went as deep as it does. And it would.

And yes, personally I think someone can hold (what I would say is a ) radical opinion and behave impartially, but it would undermine faith in the BBC, which is pretty rocky as it is.

---

Neither of those responses is an answer to my question, which was: So you think people who work for the 'impartial' BBC are themselves impartial on such topics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

That definition of woke and anti woke is so fkn woke.😭🤣

---

What’s interesting is that it always appears to be the same people who are not affected by these issues themselves who have weaponised the term woke. Walk in other peoples shoes springs to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOZZER2

interesting to see the viewing figures from last nights show

Last nights MOTD was watched by 2.58 million viewers up by 500,000 from last weeks show !

---

Hardly surprising. I'm guessing most of the increased audience were curious to see what it would be like. I know I was. Last night was the first time I've watch MOTD 'live' in years. I always record it and watch it on Sunday or Monday. I suspect many viewers do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Hardly surprising. I'm guessing most of the increased audience were curious to see what it would be like. I know I was. Last night was the first time I've watch MOTD 'live' in years. I always record it and watch it on Sunday or Monday. I suspect many viewers do the same.

---

i guess so . the proof of the pudding will be next weeks figures

can't remember the last time i watched MOTD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Neither of those responses is an answer to my question, which was: So you think people who work for the 'impartial' BBC are themselves impartial on such topics?

---

Of course, not everyone who works for impartial institutions, be it the BBC, civil service, local authorities, healthcare bodies, police etc are all impartial. Of course they have opinions.

The importance is that they generally leave them at home and do their job with due impartiality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Hardly surprising. I'm guessing most of the increased audience were curious to see what it would be like. I know I was. Last night was the first time I've watch MOTD 'live' in years. I always record it and watch it on Sunday or Monday. I suspect many viewers do the same.

---

I tend to watch it live if I am not out on a Saturday night but of course, the increased figures are due to intrigue in the story.

That said, whilst it was plainly not as good as normal MOTD, it had something about it as a one off. It was quite relaxing 🤣

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperBluebirds91

What’s interesting is that it always appears to be the same people who are not affected by these issues themselves who have weaponised the term woke. Walk in other peoples shoes springs to mind.

---

What issues are these?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Neither of those responses is an answer to my question, which was: So you think people who work for the 'impartial' BBC are themselves impartial on such topics?

---

I know a few people that at the bbc in Cardiff (they are a mix when it in comes to politics) but they do all agree that as an organisation - the mindset is very left wing in terms of personal view points of the people working there.

Interesting that people make the comparison between Lineker and Sugar. Lineker is directly contracted to the bbc through his own personal services company to work on BBC programs, whereas Sugar was contracted in by an independent film company that makes The Apprentice - that the BBC purchases and pays to re broadcast.

Lineker's contract will either say he can or cant do what he did. If he cant - breach of contract - all over. If he can - then he will keep on doing it - until his contract is up - then he's off somewhere else - where he can do what the hell he wants. Handbags at dawn basically, he should just stand at the next election and see how he gets on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Yes I hate the term 'woke' it's hard to define and it's why I tend to put quotation marks around it.

It is possible of course that all these people think the language is like 1930s Germany. However, that does seem unlikely, not least because many have criticised the tweet but support his right to say it. Also it would slightly undermine the idea of an impartial BBC if that rather radical interpretation is so common throughout its organisation.

---

The BBC and their employment of prominent Tories in their upper ranks have done a fine enough job of that without any help from Lineker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

The BBC and their employment of prominent Tories in their upper ranks have done a fine enough job of that without any help from Lineker.

---

Indeed. It's not hard to see why people are miffed about that, just like it's not hard to see why people are miffed about BBC presenters tweeting pretty controversial tweets.

It's a difficult square for the BBC to circle but faith in its impartiality is critical to the BBCs entire model and ethos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Indeed. It's not hard to see why people are miffed about that, just like it's not hard to see why people are miffed about BBC presenters tweeting pretty controversial tweets.

It's a difficult square for the BBC to circle but faith in its impartiality is critical to the BBCs entire model and ethos.

---

But apparently in today's world you get to become a rule maker by greasing palms for the Tory government and a rule breaker for criticising it.